A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

based on that of Nicaea, with some differences (see Appendix). The final version
showed something of the struggle that had gone on over the divinity of the Holy
Spirit: ‘[We believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds
from the Father, who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and
the Son, who spoke through the prophets.’ Here the Holy Spirit has been
elevated to a higher status than in Nicaea, but there is no mention of it being God
and none of consubstantiality. Gregory’s formula had been rejected.
The sources of the changes in the creed apparently agreed at Constantinople
from that of Nicaea are obscure. Some have argued that they originated with
Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, who seems to have had a similar
creed in his writings of the 370s, but there is no record of Epiphanius attending
Constantinople, and many scholars believe that his text may have been rewritten
later to fit the new orthodoxy. However, the clauses on the Spirit do bear some
resemblance to ideas on its status put forward in the 370s by Basil of Caesarea.
As with most statements hammered out in large assemblies, the final text was
probably a compromise of the views of different contributors and traditions.
Whatever its source, the Nicene Creed as developed at Constantinople, the form
in which it is now used, does not contain any statement endorsing a Trinity of
three consubstantial persons. There was certainly no consensus on the nature of
the Holy Spirit.
With Nectarius now in charge, 8 the assembly was able to quash Alexandria’s
pretensions to control Constantinople and a number of canons were passed
ensuring that this could not reoccur. One forbade a bishop to interfere outside his
own see and, specifically, the bishops of Alexandria were restricted to
administering the affairs of Egypt. From now on the authority of a bishop would
run alongside the authority of the secular officials, the vicarii. With the bishops
emerging as such powerful figures this made good administrative sense.
However, Theodosius must also have been responding to the intrusive way in
which bishops from both east and west meddled in each other’s affairs and have
hoped that the reform would help bring the squabbles to an end. Most significant
of all, the council decreed that ‘the bishop of Constantinople should have the
next prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome, because the city was the
New Rome’. This was an astonishing development, not least in that it placed a
city’s political importance above that of its Christian heritage. It was a further
reflection of Theodosius’ determination that the Church should be bound within
the secular political establishment. It was also a shrewd political move. With
Nectarius in such a strong position, and new bishops in Antioch (Flavianus was